/lit/ - Literature

>>22936949
>I'm incapable of engaging with religion so I'll sperg to strangers on the internet about how much smarter I am than the average religious person
Fedora tippers are a sad lot.

>>22672327
>Why do christians think it is necessary to believe in the 3 separate entities that make up God in their theoretical concept and it's not enough to just believe in God?
They do just believe in God. The Doctrine of the Trinity is an explanation of how different aspects of Him are understood via different metaphors found within scripture. The key insight to this is understanding that scriptural language isn't demotic.
>I mean, at the end of the day, all you know about Jesus, you have heard from what men have written down two thousand years ago and then those texts were carefully curated by a roman council.
That's only true if you take things in a very literal sense and its representive of a modern bias projected backward through time. We have 2 millenia of theological work incubated alongside the development of Western civilization as a whole. The Bible represents a diverse range of information from history to poetry.
>Like in my very soul, something about this message doesn't feel right.
Then you should seek out information paths that help you answer such questions in a way that's reconciliatory to your own instincts. There are probably ways to message religious leaders online and I'm willing to be they'd be more than happy to engage with you.

>>22631154
>it's not a metaphor
NTA, religion is a language of metaphor. Fedoras stick to literalism because they're filtered and going after low-hanging fruit services the superiority complex they express through atheism.

>>22053689
OP is retarded and can't decipher the different linguistic modes of the Bible.

>>21975145
Yeah, I said that religious belief is culturally contingent and it's thereby undecidable on a macro-social level which religion should be invested with ultimate authority. I then said that this doesn't entail the idea that a given religious structure is untrue or not superior to others even when it comes to how you restrict it according to cultural context. I added that you shouldn't neglect the fact religious understanding is a cross-cultural phenomena, it uses the same language and even often the exact same methaphor and imagry across cultural borders, and emphasized that such things remain relevant in modern contexts even though they harken back to preliterate man.
>once secular society has imposed it's morals on religious institutions, they become much more tolerant and well behaved
That's a new point and even though you've failed to address any of my prior arguments I'll point out why it's fallacious. First, you have no standing to assert we focus on negative outcome related to religious belief. I can equally point to positive outcomes and influences religion has had while also asserting the fact that no one argues religous structures allow man to act without any mistakes (once again you're asserting an idea of dogmatism that begs the question that religious structures and understanding remain static regardless of how society evolves or changes). Second, an article written by Pope Benedict XVI that's available ITT gets into how societal influences outside of the church can corrupt it's organs--that is the dialogue between any church and secular society is a two-way street and positive/negative influence cannot be characterized as always coming from only one of them.
>Also, "scientism" isn't a word
It is. Scientism is a dogmatic ideology that insists only beliefs based on scientific understanding carry weight when it comes to how we should understand and interpret the world around us. It's a side effect of the demotic phase of language in which we find ourselves (see pic-related and do further research if interested).